Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Incredible New Photographs of Live Coelacanths

Posted by timothy on from the besonders-freundlich dept.

zapyon writes "German magazine Spiegel Online has just put some incredible photographs of coelacanths on their site. The article is pointing to the current German edition of National Geographic."

13 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And this is news because...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because a picture of a cool fish is more interesting than what the result of the IT industry Poll for the presidential election?

  2. It's not news on Vulcan by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Human beings, however, might enjoy simple ape-like wonderment gazing at some modern high quality images of a fish-o-saurus that's said "Fuck you, that's why" to evolution for 65 million years.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:It's not news on Vulcan by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think I remember reading that when the coelocanth was formally rediscovered, some of the local fishermen seemed surprised. They had occasionally dredged them up in their nets, but always tossed them overboard because they tasted so bad. This site suggests that its oily flesh also acts as a powerful laxative.

      Probably best to leave them in the water.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:It's not news on Vulcan by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention creatures like this should make one wonder....what else is out there? With sats and smartphones, airplanes buzzing around the planet and craft exploring Mars we seem to forget there is still a lot of this planet yet to explore, deep oceans and deep jungles, who knows what is living out there complete unknown to us?

      Articles like this are useful if for no other reason than to take us out of our jaded mindset for a few moments to ponder all the different things yet to know, yet to be found, its worth it for that alone IMHO.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Re:Darn kids by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

    GET OFF MY LAWN.

    Coelacanths on your lawn?

    He should turn down his sprinkler.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Re:And this is news because...? by beckett · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just wondering why this is news. Coelacanths were discovered to still be living in ~1938. Having photos isn't new, as they had live specimens (and dead ones). There were even 2 species found, not just one.

    Google for coelacanth pics and it's almost all dead, preserved specimens. This article is news because despite the dead samples in hand (n.b. no live specimens exist in captivity), little is known about the behaviour of the living coelacanth; encountering one at human-diveable depths is an event in itself. This article is not saying it's the first specimen found; it is basically the best in situ photo ever taken of a living coelacanth.

  5. Re:My bad by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll be honest; the first thing that popped into my head was trilobites. To me, it was a very interesting news day for about 1.8 seconds.

    Typical attention span for the interwebs these days.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  6. Fascinating Animals by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always wondered how Coelacanth survived for so long. Everything about it is primitive. It has a slow metabolism (or at least the ability to make it slow) and more or less rides the currents to its feeding grounds and back. Very different from the high energy, small, modern fish.

    As a species, it has basically been in a evolutionary standstill for 400 million years, and current populations have low genetic diversity (which may be a hint as to why).

    My best guess is that some mechanism to not mutate much, flesh that isn't good food for many animals (gives humans upset tummies), a robust way of obtaining food (eating anything), and good energy conservation have probably contributed to its durability as a species. But I would think that lots of species have had these attributes, long ago.

    It's habits and characteristics are remarkably similar to another living fossil, the Nautilus.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:Fascinating Animals by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course biologists do: coelacanths (and insects, and everything else) are evolving. Over the 360 million years coelacanths have been around there have been countless new mutations and new environmental pressures that have shaped the coelacanths. We know of around a hundred coelacanth species that are grouped into not only multiple genera, but multiple families which we can identify from changes in skeletal structure and which we can use as index fossils. They hit upon a successful basic body form a long time ago but they've been evolving the whole time. The only way a species can't evolve is if it goes extinct.

    2. Re:Fascinating Animals by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, there are a hundred coelacanth species, from dozens of genera, from a half dozen families, grouped into at least two suborders fitting into the order Coelacanthiformes. The taxonomic equivalent for dogs is the order Carnivora. Do you really wish to make a claim roughly equivalent to claiming that bears, badgers, and bobcats could all be due to variety existing in the same Carnivora genome? Keep in mind that Carnivora is only a little more than one-tenth the age of Coelacanthiformes, yet genetic basics like chromosome number can be wildly different. Just within family Ursidae the giant panda has 42 chromosomes, the spectacled bear 52, and the grizzly 74. From this comparison then it is a good bet that the coelacanth genomes of today are quite different from what existed 360 million years ago.

      You're a bit muddled in your terms. Darwinian evolution is a collection of ideas which in Darwin's time didn't include mutation. He knew that species change over time, he knew that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, he knew that species multiplied by splitting into daughter species, he knew that speciation occurs through gradual processes rather than by saltation (sudden emergence of representatives of a new type), and he gave us one of the mechanisms of evolution: natural selection. Darwin didn't know the origin of new genetic information: mutation. In fact the merging of genetics and natural selection into the neo-Darwinian synthesis didn't happen until around 60 years after Darwin died. You're not getting genetic drift right either.

      It is completely accurate to say that the only way species don't evolve is if they go extinct. At the most basic level evolution is simply the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Get a mutation, the allele frequency changes. Natural selection kills something off, ignoring clonal populations that's a change in allele frequency. Whether or not a change is necessary for survival is looking at it wrong. After all, other members of the species are getting along just fine without some specific mutation. A better way of looking at it is to ask if the mutation is compatible with survival. Does the mutation result in a nonviable organism? That's bad. Does it do nothing? Fine. Does it give you an advantage under some or all situations? That's good and as a result you might get more offspring and over time produce a large shift in allele frequency. These changes brought about by mutation and selection (and other evolutionary mechanisms) build up over time and new species inevitably result. There's nothing religious about it.

  7. Re:Two? by turkeyfish · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not just a neat fish. You are literally looking at a very distant relative of yourself. A number of bones in the fins of these fishes exhibit homology to the bones in your arms and legs.

  8. Irony by AlexCorn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does anyone else appreciate the irony of a fossil fish being presented on what appears to be a fossil web page?

  9. Re:Two? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like coelacanths, and this shouldn't have been on /.

    Well, the first half of the byline is "News for Nerds." We may be IT-heavy here, but other sciences do show up from time to time.

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.